Losing ground in Afghanistan

By Jennifer J. Foster

As progress is made on the security front in Iraq, coalition forces are losing ground in Afghanistan—and with deadly results. From the Associated Press:

Militants killed more U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan in June than in Iraq for the second straight month, a grim milestone capping a run of headline-grabbing insurgent attacks that analysts say underscore the Taliban’s growing strength.

The fundamentalist militia in June staged a sophisticated jailbreak that freed 886 prisoners—

Let’s stop right there. A militia was able to free 886 prisoners? What kind of prison was this, a tent city? Or is that “fundamentalist militia” organized, trained and equipped well enough to wage a successful assault of that magnitude on a

secure

supposedly secure building?

—then briefly infiltrated a strategic valley outside Kandahar. Last week, a Pentagon report forecast the Taliban would maintain or increase its pace of attacks, which are already up 40 percent this year from 2007 where U.S. troops operate along the Pakistan border.

Some observers say the insurgency has gained dangerous momentum ...

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has noted that more international troops died in Afghanistan than in Iraq in May, the first time that had happened. While that trend - now two months old - is in part due to falling violence in Iraq, it also reflects rising violence in Afghanistan.

As for the casualties, at least 27 U.S. soliders and 13 coalition soldiers were killed in Afghanistan, while 29 U.S. soliders and two coalition soldiers were killed in Iraq in June. That makes last month “the deadliest month since the 2001 U.S.-led invasion to oust the Taliban,“ according to the AP—this despite the fact that the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan—about 32,500—is a fraction of the number of those in Iraq (about 144,000).

Are we headed for another surge—this time, in Afghanistan?

Barack Obama has argued that the Bush Administration’s attention to the War in Iraq has caused it to lose sight of the war against the Taliban.

These numbers bolster his argument.

Katrina vs. Midwest floods

By Jennifer J. Foster

Received this yesterday ... I’m sure it’s one of those viral e-mails making the rounds. But there’s one characteristic that distinguishes it from most other viral e-mails (especially those about Barack Obama): It’s true.

So I thought I’d pass it along to you for your consideration. The author, whoever he or she is, compares the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina—and just in New Orleans, not the entire area affected by Katrina—to what’s going on relative to the floods in the Midwest. (Keep in mind that in many places along the Mississippi River, floodwaters are just beginning to recede, so this is still a disaster in progress.) Read it, then tell me: What’s your take? And what’s the difference?

Just a personal observation…  As I watched the news coverage of the massive flooding in the Midwest with over 100 blocks of the city of Cedar Rapids, Iowa under water, levees breaking, and the attention now turned downstream for when this massive amount of water hits the Mississippi, what amazed me is not what we saw, but what we didn’t see:

1. We don’t see looting.

2. We don’t see street violence.

3. We don’t see people sitting on their rooftops waiting for the government to come and save them.

4. We don’t see people waiting on the government to do anything.

5. We don’t see Hollywood organizing benefits to raise money for people to rebuild.

6. We don’t see people blaming President Bush.

7. We don’t see people ignoring evacuation orders.

8. We don’t see people blaming a government conspiracy to blow up the levees as the reason some have not held.

9. We don’t see the US Senators or the Governor of Iowa crying on TV.

10. We don’t see the Mayors of any of these cities complaining about the lack of state or federal response.

11. We don’t see or hear reports of the police going around confiscating personal firearms so only the criminal will be armed.

12. We don’t see gangs of people going around and randomly shooting at the rescue workers.

13. You don’t see some leaders in this country blaming the bad behavior of the Iowa flood victims on “society” (of course there is no wide spread reports of lawlessness to require excuses).

So, what do you make of this? Is it the nature of the disaster that makes a difference? If not, what is?